TALENT MANAGEMENT AT GOOGLE INC

1. TALENT MANAGEMENT AT GOOGLE INC

2. Table of Contents
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................2
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................3
Analyzing Motivation and Reward Strategies at Google Inc. using a Needs-Based Approach.....................4
Talent Management through Work Redesign at Google Inc........................................................................6
Employee Rewards vs. Appraisals: Implications..........................................................................................8
Conclusion and Recommendations.............................................................................................................9
List of References......................................................................................................................................11

3. Introduction
Present-day companies are increasingly adopting novel ways of recruiting and retaining
top talents. A number of companies approach the process in novel ways, while yet others
implement documented strategies of motivating employees not only to retain them, but also to
increase overall productivity and maximum profitability. Theories of workplace motivation have
equally been studied and reviewed with the greatest vigor, especially in the wake of intense
competition occasioned by globalization. Old and new companies in almost all fields imaginable
are adopting, redefining, and replicating these theories to establish strategies for remaining
competitive. While the many novel strategies at motivating employees arise from conventional
theories, these theories have certain grey areas, which when implemented inappropriately, may
have cataclysmic effects on the companies. Contemporary companies not only restructure their
managements to appeal to greater investor confidence, they also adopt novel ways of motivating
and retaining their old and new employees ostensibly for their talents (Hamel, 2007). Leading the
pack are companies such as the Admiral Group in the UK, Wholefoods Inc., and Google Inc. in
the US, Atlassian in Australia EMC in China among others worldwide. Need-based theories are
particularly employed to motivate employees innately. Using such approaches, the companies
have succeeded in retaining employees who not only produce blockbuster products but also those
who streamline creative ideas in quick successions. Google Inc., for instance, emphasize
employee benefits, and rewards in its employee retention strategies. It also provides favorable
work environments; promote groupthink, and teamwork, all of which offer intrinsic and extrinsic
reward opportunities for the retention of its best talents. Eventually, workers are happy,

4. productive, and manageable. In this paper, I shall describe and analyze Google Inc.’s worker
motivation, reward, and talent management strategies. In particular, I will outline and discuss
worker motivation strategies at Google Inc. using the needs-based approach and discuss how
Google uses a work-based approach as a talent–management tool. The paper shall also revisit
Google’s reward system against employee performance-appraisal and, finally, make
recommendations targeting the enhancement of employee and company expectations.
Analyzing Motivation and Reward Strategies at Google Inc. using a Needs-Based Approach
Needs-based theories explain intrinsic ways through which people working within
organizations can be motivated. Seen in the light of employee motivation to productivity, a need-
based approach represents the basis upon which tangible rewards and intangible fulfillments that
meet an individual’s needs can be used to spur greater productivity in an employee and in the
company. At its most basic, a needs-based approach is a way of motivation by providing
personal human needs. These needs, depending on the theory adopted, range from basic human
desires such as the need to survive to more complex and ethereal needs such as a person’s
emotional and psychological well-being.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the most appreciated need-based theory for employee
motivation. Taken in the context of Google’s motivation and reward strategy, the hierarchy
demands that an order of needs fulfillment is observed for all employees to attain and retain their
productive power. For instance, employees would need the most basic needs such as food, water
and shelter before needing fulfillment, self-esteem, and belonging in that order (Maslow, 2012).
It should be observed, however, that in the complex context that Google operate, employees’
personal needs might not often align with company needs (Pisano, 2015). Essentially then, a

5. balance between what the individual employee requires and what the company can offer must be
struck in the hierarchical order that Maslow proposed.
Atkinson & McClelland proposed the second need-based theory. Based on individual
need for Achievement, the theory suggests that achievement, authority, and affiliation are the
three specific intrinsic needs individuals crave for within the workplace (Montana & Charnov,
2008). Within this framework, an employee will strive to attain all these three needs even as s/he
struggles to attain organizational goals. At Google, for instance, a worker would struggle most to
attain one among the three intangible segments of fulfillment than s/he would struggle to attain
the other two. A salesperson within the company who relies on a quota would best be
achievement-driven than s/he would be in need of either authority, or affiliation, for instance.
The third need-based premise for motivation is offered by the Alderfer's ERG Theory.
According to the theory, one would easily regress to satisfy a lower need if a higher need cannot
be met. Essentially then, the management should recognize that an employee has a confluence of
needs that should be met simultaneously if the employee is to remain productive within the
workplace. Focusing, for instance, only on one need exclusively does not motivate an employee
but instead may de-motivate him/her especially if the need is not of greater priority than another
need (Williams, 2014). In the context of Google’s approach to employee motivation, then, the
company essentially must meet a diversity of needs particular to every employee, lack of which
they would be frustrated if their priority needs are not met.
The key to Google’s successful employee motivational strategy aside from attractive
compensation is an effective work process. The company’s method of job design is aimed at
ridding workers of monolithic and stifling retinue of most formal work plans. Intrinsically,
Google utilizes no particular hierarchical needs framework but purposeful and manageable

6. worker groups. Its worker structure is made flat so that workers’ creativity is cultivated and
replicated. In effect, the worker groups offer concerted focus on particular problems, and an ease
of collaboration, which allow members to integrate their findings easily with outcomes from
other groups.
Another need that the company appears to have met with considerable excellence is the
balance between employees’ personal needs and the company’s need for productivity. This
manifests essentially as a total reward system for employee motivation and translates into
individual room for achievement (Armstrong, 2007). Two particular approaches that the
company adopts are side projects and flextime policies. Through its side projects’ approach,
Google Inc. allows its employees up to 20% of their time to work on projects other than those
they directly involve in within the company (Kotter International, 2013 Aug). The rationale for
this approach is to meet employees’ need for achievement. Through it, the employees not only
get to appreciate the freedom to indulge in establishing things of their own dreams, it also allows
the company to nurture innovations most of which have returned to benefit the company directly
and indirectly. Closely associated with the need for achievement is the way the company meets
its workers’ psychological needs right from the time of recruitment. It offers psychological
contracts to its employees by appealing to their exemplariness (Armstrong, 2007). It does this,
essentially, by employing individuals who have excelled in leading universities across the globe.
Talent Management through Work Redesign at Google Inc
Where Google Inc. may have employed the reward strategies either in isolation or as an
integrated strategy for motivating its employees, the ‘devil’ of its employee motivation success is
in the ‘detail’. Several employees’ needs seem to have been met while yet others remain unmet,
or poorly met. Basic intrinsic needs appear to be met adequately at Google Inc. The basis of this

7. assertion is in how the company compensates its employees for work done. The company has
adopted a thoughtful approach that it uses to offer benefits, rewards, and compensation to its
employees for purposes of retaining excellent talent within its precincts (Thompson, 2002). The
company’s rate of compensation is unmatched among players in its industry. Not only has the
company employed top-notch employees, it has also engaged in recruitment wars with its
competitors for talented employees if only to increase their stakes in the industry. It has also
raised salaries for its employees in order to retain them. Moreover, to retain talented employees,
the company offers 15% in compensation above competitors’ rate as it hires new employees.
The freedom to self-direct and make decisions is in itself a drive for many talented
Google employees. It maximizes creativity and hones talents. The 20% of own project time is
another novel idea that motivates employees to be innovative (Strumsky, Lobo & Tainter, 2010).
Letting employees to have such time allows Google to launch products arising from the personal
projects. Moreover, no official channels of work exist at Google. This implies an unending flow
of information, ideas, and talents within the multidisciplinary teams. Independent committees
oversee the multiple smaller workgroups. This instills in employees a sense of freedom, esteem
and an entrepreneurial culture that is hugely beneficial to the company.
Another talent stroke at Google Inc. is the freedom that the company offers to its
employees to explore and hone their talents. This is a big incentive for many old and new
workers who feel recognized and appreciated. The strategy also keeps them on purpose and
excited about their progress and successes, thus essentially retaining them within the walls of
Google Inc. By doing this, Google has not only been successful in attracting top talent, the
company has also combined this with heavy compensation to retain topnotch employees. This
treatment also makes the employees feel prestigious, not only in their novel findings that the

8. company adopt, but also in their association with the most admired IT company globally. The
work is challenging and interesting and develops the workers both intellectually and in their
career. The work is also made meaningful by being innovative and pleasurable (Lucco, 2014
Dec).
Google’s flexible work schedules are also perhaps the most replicated in other
companies. The company has a tradition of giving its employees several opportunities to
establish and stick to their own work schedules (Martin, 2014 Sept). This keeps employees
happy, motivated, and free. The work-life balance arising from Google’s flextime policies are
emotionally refreshing and socially enriching for the companies workers to explore their talents.
The approach is at its best in telecommuting. Telecommuting offers employees ample time for
individual engagements alongside formal work. For this, employees are very ready to forego
their compensation, which is a cost-reduction strategy for Google but also a way of honing
talents on the go. Moreover, telecommuting raises individual employee productivity and
satisfaction on their jobs.
Employee Rewards vs. Appraisals: Implications
From the foregoing, Google Inc. seems to put its employees’ interest ahead of anything
else. The unique work environment, the huge rewards, compensation, and the flexible work
schedules are based on conventional need-based approaches grounded in evidence, and on
company goals. Nonetheless, the approach to motivation adopted by the company may be seen as
superfluous against an undefined performance appraisal framework. The company’s largesse
may sound excessive or as a noble but wasteful prima facie. Forbes, for instance, revealed that
an unannounced Google reward offered up to half the salary of a deceased employee’s salary for
a decade to his/her spouse. This would appear so huge for just a show of niceness. Interestingly,

9. the company keeps data of the merits associated with its seemingly superfluous rewards and
compensations. For the employees, the rewards are a source of happiness. The company seems to
devote its rewards to making them happy. In so doing, the company is also able to keep the
employees stuck with the Google culture.
Findings indicate that the rewards are very cost-effective and in fact beneficial to the
company both in the short and long terms (Thompson, 2002). The maternity leave that the
company offers to its employees, for instance, has been beneficial in attracting and retaining
talented female employees. When the program was first rolled out, for instance, the attrition rate
among new mothers dropped down by 50% and past the average rate among other employees
(Manjoo, 2013). According to Laszlo Bock, who heads the Company’s People Operation (HR)
Department, happiness among the employees also rose as well. Interestingly, the reward that was
initially considered an excess was cost effective for it saved the company on recruitment costs. In
2008, for instance, Google, Inc. had $209,624 in profit per employee, the highest among its
competitors such as Apple, Intel, Microsoft, and IBM. This was an increase of 31.3% over what
it recorded in 2007 thanks to its aggressive employee motivation strategy that year (Datamonitor,
2009).
Conclusion and Recommendations
Rewarding employees, according to Google Inc., has been its best strategy in attracting
and retaining talents. The benefits, from the foregoing, are substantial. The company not only
offers employees a myriad of rewards, free services, and a community of freedom, it also offers
work flexibility, opportunities to hone talents and compensation above competitors’ rates. The
employees are happy and free to develop and share novel ideas. They rejoice in working for a
top-notch company. By offering resources to its workers to implement their ideas, the company

10. has not only been able to remain the most innovative talents, it is also the most profitable and the
favorite in the global information technology industry. Based on the needs theory, the strategies
adopted by Google appear all evidence-based. Nevertheless, while the motivational strategies
employed by Google Inc. may seem absolute, the company still grapples with employee turnover
occasioned chiefly by incompetent modes of worker motivation. Fortunately, the company has a
number of other ways of meeting the motivational needs of its employees. While it gives
excellent compensation already, the company would best meet the employees’ monetary needs
more by offering greater financial stakes in the business for its employees. This can happen
either through a willing contribution scheme or through a compulsory shares program. This way,
it would rope in more employees into its ownership thereby increasing their sense of title and
motivation to produce more. Equity compensations may also inspire employees into investing
their profits back into the company, thus motivating them even more. Paid vacation would be
another avenue for employee motivation. This is often registered as the best way for meeting
social and interpersonal needs. Offering paid vacation to productive employees would motivate
employees not only to work to attain this luxury, but also train them to adopt a culture of
relieving work-based stress through vacations.

11. List of References
Armstrong, M. 2007. A handbook of employee reward management and practice. Kogan Page,
Philadelphia.
Datamonitor. 2009. Google, Inc. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from http://datamonitor.com/
Google.com. 2014. Benefits. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from
http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/static.py?page=benefits
Hamel, G. 2007. The future of management. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kotter International. Aug 21, 2013. Google's Best New Innovation: Rules Around '20% Time'.
Forbes Magazine. Accessed 10 March 2016, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2013/08/21/googles-best-new-innovation-rules-
around-20-time/#645e399268b8
Lucco, J. 2 Dec 2014. How Employees Are Motivated: Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.
Clearpoint Strategy. Accessed 10 March 2016, from
https://www.clearpointstrategy.com/how-employees-are-motivated-autonomy-mastery-
purpose/
Manjoo, F. 21, January 2013, The Happiness Machine: How Google became such a great place
to work. Slate Magazine. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/google_people_operations
_the_secrets_of_the_world_s_most_scientific_human.html

12. Martin. 25 September 2014. People management: The Google Way of Motivating Employees.
CLEVERism. Accessed 10 March 2016, from http://www.cleverism.com/google-way-
motivating-employees/
Maslow, A, 2012. A theory of human motivation. Start Publishing.
Montana, P., and Charnov, B. 2008. Management. Barron's Educational Series, Hauppauge, NY.
Pisano, G. 2015. You Need an Innovation Strategy, Harvard Business Review, June 2015.
Accessed 10 March 2016, from https://hbr.org/2015/06/you-need-an-innovation-strategy
Strumsky, D., Lobo, J. and Tainter, J. 2010. Complexity and the productivity of innovation.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science 27 (5), 496.
Thompson, P, 2002. Total reward. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Williams, M. 2014. Serving the Self From the Seat of Power: Goals and Threats Predict Leaders’
Self-Interested Behavior. Journal of Management, 40 (5), 1365-1395